The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed)

reply to post by caballero


Wow, i at least give you a nod for admitting your mistake and apologizing

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

Ok. In light of this post, I say we vote now with 26 nimonees. I'll tally the votes in the morning.

Does anyone object to this?

I am all for it...however...there may be some still to come into the discussion... Not sure if that matters, but it has only been a few hours since the initiating U2U went out.

Just kidding!!!

I am in favour of your vote!

reply to post by skeptic1


I think entry should be based on the number of posts, not number of points. But that's okay ^_^ the committee can decide that stuff out after.

reply to post by Unit541

By the way, are there any other legal medicinal users here besides myself?

Gotta love the OC!

And btw - if we are trying to put people on the committee that are NOT biased - have we had everyone on the nomination list give their opinion, or are we to troll thru their threads to find this out..?

Okay, so are we voting?

What about the members who haven't signed in yet and haven't read the latest news?

Shouldn't they get a chance to vote?

Is it fair to keep the voting thread (which I assume someone will make) open for a period of time so that people who weren't here, have a chance to state their opinion?

SO - is it possible to set up a Voting system (kind of like we did during the elections)?

- Carrot

I'd like to nominate myself also....

I think that my stance on the issue should be heard, and is a sound and just one that is followed by many an ATSr...

Well we have the nominees,i say we let administration pick from that list who they want to talk with.

It looks like a good broad spectrum list.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


That's why I put Post-based points in there.....not just points in general.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Of course, that would be allowed. In the first instance, you are using a legally prescribed drug in a legally prescribed manner. It would not fall under the TC. The same goes for the second instance as well.

Not so cut and dry. The legality can be argued either way, depending on whether you want to base the decision on federal or state law.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
You are over-thinking this. Of course that would fall in the penumbra of what is allowed. What is prohibited is discussion of illicit activity.

oversimplifying this topic has gotten me into trouble here previously. It cannot be over-thought, due to the ambiguity of the issues at hand.

Like I've said time and time again over the last 15 pages, this is not something that can be policed with a firm set of guidelines. Moderators must be able to make rational and explainable decisions regarding what is appropriate and pertinent to the discussion in it's specific context. A simple list of do's and don'ts will not suffice. Real-time decision making is required.

Originally posted by chapter29
And btw - if we are trying to put people on the committee that are NOT biased - have we had everyone on the nomination list give their opinion, or are we to troll thru their threads to find this out..?

Pardon me for being unclear on this, but what kind of bias are we talking about here?

reply to post by CA_Orot


Benevolent is setting it up,

Though i agree, it is premature to start.

Everyone...

I think we should vote right now between us. If we wait, more people will be nominated, and it could turn into a mess. I also think that many people could vote without having read all 20 someodd pages of this thread.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I think he means, the nominees being biased toward the subject at hand.

Well, if everyone else is putting themself forwards, I'll do the same.

VOTE FOR BUDSKI -


A VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE FOR


MEDIOCRITY






[edit on 25/2/2009 by budski]

Originally posted by SvenTheBerserK
Well we have the nominees,i say we let administration pick from that list who they want to talk with.

It looks like a good broad spectrum list.

I like this idea, too.

Then, it is less of a popularity contest and more of a actual group of people that Admin is willing to talk and listen to.

JMO....

i have read all pages of this thread.....

Vote.

do it now.

Originally posted by CA_Orot
Okay, so are we voting?

What about the members who haven't signed in yet and haven't read the latest news?

Shouldn't they get a chance to vote?

Is it fair to keep the voting thread (which I assume someone will make) open for a period of time so that people who weren't here, have a chance to state their opinion?

SO - is it possible to set up a Voting system (kind of like we did during the elections)?

- Carrot

That's why I think that a seperate thread alltogether would be more appropriate than voting within this one. Really, this thread has gone from a declaration of a new RULE with no room for negeotiation to a fairly swift comprimise.

As we have seen from new members joining the discussion at this late point, most folks won't bother to read past the first few pages.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Thats the problem, we have thirty nominees right now, thanks to Bud

Originally posted by skeptic1

Originally posted by SvenTheBerserK
Well we have the nominees,i say we let administration pick from that list who they want to talk with.

It looks like a good broad spectrum list.

I like this idea, too.

Then, it is less of a popularity contest and more of a actual group of people that Admin is willing to talk and listen to.

JMO....

Well, I also vote to not have a vote, based on skeptic1's logic, it's as sound as it gets.